Cramer on BloggingStocks: Endless Caveats Don't Make You Any Money

Do you know these same objections occur even as the existing-home sales number grows? Do you know these same objections occur even when the $8,000 is ridiculously low compared to the price of the home? Do you know these same objections occur even as existing supply of unsold homes declines each month? Do you know that these objections occur even as the cancellations -- where people walk away from down payments because they can't get credit or change their minds -- decline dramatically? Do you know that these same objections occur even as the banks are not showing an increase in bad loans happening? Do you know that these same objections occur even as housing starts stay low, meaning that new supply is not being added as the old supply is taken off? Do you know that these same objections occur even as the hardest-hit areas -- the Inland Empire, the southern and western part of Florida, Phoenix and Nevada -- have bottomed months ago? Do you know that these same objections occur even though the tax credit's been extended pretty much indefinitely? Do you know that these same objections occur even though the Case-Shiller index has shown improvement every month since the summer? Do you know these same objections occur even though the percentage of increase of foreclosures has declined each month for four straight months? Do you know that these caveats occur even though many areas have increased in value in the last four months?

Why? Why isn't there a recognition in the media that things are better? What has to happen? What has to happen to change it?

Do we need to wait until the following story occurs: "Home inflation's back because there aren't enough homes?" Is that the story we want to wait for?

If that's the case, what price do you think you would have to pay for Home Depot (HD) (Cramer's Take) even though it is as its 52-week high? How about for Sherwin Williams (SHW) (Cramer's Take)? Whirlpool (WHR) (Cramer's Take)? Leggett & Platt (LEG) (Cramer's Take)? Fortune Brands (FO) (Cramer's Take)? Stanley Works (SWK) (Cramer's Take)? Lowe's (LOW) (Cramer's Take)? What price would you have to pay for Bank of America (BAC) (Cramer's Take)? For Wells Fargo (WFC) (Cramer's Take)? For U.S. Bancorp (USB) (Cramer's Take)? What price would you have to pay for BB&T (BBT) (Cramer's Take) or SunTrust (STI) (Cramer's Take)?

You see, that's the problem. If you wait for that story, which is obviously going to occur some day, you are going to miss even more than you have missed since all of the negatives turned positive.

The intellectual exercise of caveating, no matter how important you think it is, has already caused people to miss doubles or triples. It is about to cause you to miss another 50% to 60% move as we inch toward the caveats seeming ridiculous to being totally absurd.

Our job is to anticipate a trajectory, not to wait until the trajectory is clear. We can't do that if we want to make money.

If, on the other hand, we want to be cautious and prudent and wait for the all-clear, that's fine, too. It just won't make you money.

Every single story has a negative attached to it. Intel (INTC) (Cramer's Take) has good demand, but the demand could go away. Union Pacific (UNP) (Cramer's Take) has good loading numbers, but that could go away. Health care reform didn't affect the stocks, but it could eventually when the taxes change. Pepsi (PEP) (Cramer's Take) and Coke (KO) (Cramer's Take) could keep turning around, but a tax may be in the offering. Altria (MO) (Cramer's Take) could raise the dividend, but it could lose a case in court. Google (GOOG) (Cramer's Take) might have a better-than-expected quarter, but then again it might not.

These are easy stories to write. You can never be wrong. Nothing will ever come back to haunt you. You have covered your bases and your butts. No editor is ever going to say, "Why did you caveat this?"

But people watch and listen and read these stories to make money, not just to "learn." No one -- except for me -- ever considers them misdirection.

So, for a moment, let's change the venue to football. The backs, instead of lining up in an I formation, spread out with the quarterback in the shotgun and two wide receivers on each end. It could be a run play in disguise, or it could be a pass play. The defensive coordinator can say to himself, "It might be a run, or it might be a pass." He has to gamble whether the offense is misdirecting or if it is just setting up for a pass. It could be one way or another.

A fan can look at it like that and guess. A coordinator has to calculate what he knows and what he has seen and contemplate whether he has seen this pattern before and it is a phony, or whether it is the real thing given the downs, the yards needed, the coach who is on the other side. If he guesses wrong, he can come to the sideline and say, "Coach, it looked like a run but it could have been a pass."

Is that valuable?

Is that defensible?

No. It is ludicrous.

So are the articles about housing.

They are spectator pieces. Not informed opinions that show what could happen.

The defensive coordinator caveats, he gets fired. The writers and editors caveat, and they are praised.

They are uninformed fans who don't have to put anything on the line. They show up no matter what.

I want informed coaches who lose their jobs if the crowd recognizes they are wrong all of the time and the owners and head coaches know that the caveats wrecked the defense.

Why do we accept the harsh judgment and the rigor in a venue where there is no money on the line for many and simply suspend rigor and judgment when there is money on the line?

I can tell you why.

Because of laziness, because of fear of being wrong, because there is no penalty to being wrong.

I like it when there is a penalty. It is more valuable. And like a bad coach, you get driven out and don't return.

I am criticized endlessly for my picks. But, critics, does it occur to you that I haven't been thrown out by the coaches, by the owners and by the fans? Are they stupid? Are they dumber than the alumni and athletic directors at Notre Dame? Are they more stupid than the owners of the Lions, the Rams and the Redskins with failed caveated programs? I don't think so.

People should have to take stands. They shouldn't be able to get away with, "On the one hand it looked like a pass, and on the other hand it looked like a run." That's unprofessional, a cop-out. Valueless.

And it will be my mission in 2010 to come down on these people hard, even as I make mistakes and admit to those mistakes.

They are the ones the public mistrusts. Not me. They are the ones that mistrust me, not the public.

So I am taking them on and forcing them to admit that what they said when they caveated was a mistake, just as I have to admit when I make a mistake.

I am calling them out.

Nobody will like it, except those trying to make money, which is who we are doing this for anyway.

Jim Cramer is co-founder and chairman of TheStreet.com. He contributes daily market commentary for TheStreet.com's sites and serves as an adviser to the company's CEO. At the time of publication, Cramer was long Bank of America, Home Depot, Altria and Pepsi.